QuoteAlas not. I will send a reminder on Monday next.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
In an underground car park?
Alas not. I will send a reminder on Monday next.
Horses mouth.
Yeah, that will work....
And the horse is dogfood now??
CAS Ruling in full....
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...ard%202071.pdf
I presume item 3 in the conclusion was the awarding of costs?
I expect an IFA appeal on the basis that this was your 666th post and therefore the FAI are clearly in league with the devil.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Just had a quick perusal of the ruling. I felt like I was revising...
The references made to the "1950 FIFA Ruling" by the IFA (and previously known as the supposed Gentleman's Agreement between the FAI and IFA) are quite interesting. Especially the part where the IFA confirm they could not produce the contents of this ruling (they were currently looking for them) but that the IFA "was not uncertain of the form it took".
Edit: reading on; while the IFA and its supporters have constantly referred to the existence of a "Gentleman's Agreement" between the two associations, it is revealed that the FAI was not actually party to said agreement. Essentially this supposed "Gentleman's Agreement" is a letter from FIFA to the IFA telling the IFA "it was inadmissible to select players, being citizens of Eire" for its represenative teams.
Last edited by ifk101; 29/09/2010 at 11:20 AM.
Sounds like this 'Gentleman's agreement' existed only in the heads of the IFA grand wizards.The references made to the "1950 FIFA Ruling" by the IFA (and previously known as the supposed Gentleman's Agreement between the FAI and IFA) are quite interesting. Especially the part where the IFA confirm they could not produce the contents of this ruling (they were currently looking for them) but that the IFA "was not uncertain of the form it took".
Edit: reading on; while the IFA and its supporters have constantly referred to the existence of a "Gentleman's Agreement" between the two associations, it is revealed that the FAI was not actually party to said agreement. Essentially this supposed "Gentleman's Agreement" is a letter from FIFA to the IFA telling the IFA "it was inadmissible to select players, being citizens of Eire" for its represenative teams.
The FAI for its part contends that the status of Irish citizens living in N. Ireland has never been discussed and that the FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its team, whether they live in NI or elsewhere.
After last weeks IFA EGM some already believed that.I expect an IFA appeal on the basis that this was your 666th post and therefore the FAI are clearly in league with the devil.
Just seen that Preston youngfella Adam Barton pulled out of the NI full squad to keep his "Options Open"... Is he elligable for us??? Or is his "Option" England in this case??
It's quite comical tbh. The IFA are "not uncertain of the form it (the Gentleman's Agreement) took" but it wasn't agreed with the FAI and the FAI wasn't notified of its existence. And this 1950's "agreement" formed the basis of their appeal to the CAS.
In fairness, a gentlemen's agreement, by its nature is frequently unprovable, as it stands on both parties being gentleman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen's_agreement
Some interesting revelations - at least to me.
The FAI did accept the FIFA compromise proposal in Nov 2007 but it was rejected by the IFA.
Page 18
64
7 March 2007,
'FIFA Legal Committee invited the FAI voluntarily to confine itself to selecting for its association teams Northern Irish players who meet one of the following requirements: a) the player was born in the Republic of Ireland, b) his biological mother or father was born in the Republic of Ireland, c) his grandmother or grandfather was born in the Republic of Ireland, or d) he has lived continuously, for at least two years, in the Republic of Ireland'.
'On 5 November 2007, FIFA informed the IFA that the FAI did not accept its proposal of 7 March 2007'.
'The FIFA Legal Committee made a “new proposal” and invited the IFA as well as the FAI to express its position on the following “suggested approach” …..' (aka the compromise)
'On 8 November 2007, the IFA expressed its disagreement with the proposal of the FIFA Legal Committee, which was however accepted by the FAI on 20 November 2007'.
page 23
'If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would (be) inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker'.
Really makes the IFA out to be quite amateurish.
The FAI, on the other hand, employed a swiss lawyer who referenced the Swiss Civil Code. Impressive.
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
True but the IFA in their appeal refer to the Gentleman's Agreement as the "1950 FIFA Ruling" and told the Court "that it was currently in the process of seeking a copy of the original ruling". But of the evidence produced, it is revealed that if there was a Gentleman's Agreement it was between FIFA and the IFA, as there isn't any evidence to show that the FAI was party to such agreement. And this "agreement" did not have the scope of application as preceived by the IFA.
Fast forward to 1999 and Jim Boyce the then IFA President is quoted as saying the following "The issue of Northern Ireland's eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI. It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen." Jim Boyle is also quoted as saying he is "delighted" with the outcome of these talks with the FAI.
If the Gentleman's Agreement of the 1950's existed as presented by the IFA, why would Jim Boyce be "delighted" with the outcome of talks between the two associations in 1999?
Page 23
79. 'The Panel noted that IFA also advanced an alternative argument that Mr Kearns had shared nationality because, as an Irish national (irrespective of his British nationality), he could play for either IFA or FAI and Mr Hunter asserted that it had always been the case that the IFA could select Irish nationals with a territorial connection to Northern Ireland. The absence of Irish nationality from the commentary on Annexe 2 is, he submitted, inconclusive. It was apparent to the Panel that the factual basis for the assertion was controversial and disputed by the FAI’s counsel. Since neither the factual nor legal basis for this argument was sufficiently established, the Panel is in no position to find in its favour'.
The correct answer is the IFA can only select British citizens for its representative teams. Yes it is a dual national statelet but it is still inside the UK, therefore only the British nationality is relevant to selection for the IFA teams.
Last edited by geysir; 29/09/2010 at 12:37 PM.
Page 25 /26
88. In contrast to non-binding rules of conduct such as gentlemen’s agreements, contracts forming a binding agreement require the mutual agreement of the parties. Such agreement may be either express or implied (Article 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations). There is an implied agreement only when the behaviour of the party alleged to have agreed is consistent only with its having done so. In general, a passive behaviour cannot be held to amount to an agreement to be bound by a contract (ATF 123 III 53, 59). In other words, silence does not imply consent (François Dessemontet, in Commentaire Romand, Code des Obligations I, Bâle 2003, p. 14, ad. Art. 1, N. 32).
Finally, the existence of a “contract implied by conduct” is denied by the FAI, which disputes that it has ever discussed the status of Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland or accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its teams, whether living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The contrary has not, in the Panel’s view, been established by the IFA. In any event the IFA’s evidence fell short of establishing the binding nature of the alleged agreement or the legal/regulatory basis which would allow it to supersede Articles 15 to 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations.
'In any event, the alleged tacit agreement may not be used to defeat the claim of Mr Kearns, who was of course not a party to any such agreement and who, in any event, is entitled to exercise his rights as provided under Article 15 and 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations.'
Last edited by geysir; 29/09/2010 at 12:44 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks